Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin Law School
Not Clearly Pro or Con to the question "Should the US Have Attacked Iraq?"
"Inspections can only do one thing well: verify that a country's declarations about a weapons program are honest and complete. It is feasible for inspectors to look at sites and equipment to see whether the official story about their use is accurate. Inspectors can rely on scientific principles, intelligence information and surprise visits to known weapons production sites to test what they are told. It is a different proposition altogether to wander about a country looking for what has been deliberately concealed. That is a task with no end.
For inspectors to do their job, they have to have the truth, which can only come from the Iraqis. As President Bush told the United Nations last week, the world needs an Iraqi government that will stop lying and surrender the weapons programs. That is not likely to happen as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power."
"Why Iraq Will Defeat Arms Inspectors" [Op-Ed], New York Times, Sep. 16, 2002
Experts PhD's, JD's (lawyers), Judges, Members of Congress, Ambassadors, Consulate Generals, heads of government, Cabinet-level positions, military generals/admirals, Chief Weapons Inspectors, members of legislative bodies with significant involvement in, or related to, the US - Iraq conflict. [Note: Experts definition varies by site.]
Involvement and Affiliations:
Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School
Director, Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control
Testified before the House Armed Services Committee regarding the threat from Iraq's mass destruction weapon program, 2002
Former Administrative Judge, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Former Consultant on Nuclear Armes Proliferation, Department of Defense
Testifies regularly before Congressional committees
Has practiced international corporate law in New York and Paris
Has taught courses on nuclear arms proliferation at Princeton University and University of Wisconsin